teacher leaders


National Board Certified Teacher, Glenda Ritz, presented the voters of Indiana clear, consistent, convincing evidence that she deserved to be the new state school chief.

Although outspent by a 5 to 1 margin, Glenda defeated incumbent Tony Bennett (R), who had been hailed as a national example of education reform. She was the only Democrat to win a state office in Indiana, and she won it with more votes than almost any other candidate. 

Glenda, a 33-year teaching veteran, is a library/media specialist at Crooked Creek Elementary School in Indianapolis, and serves (as I do) on the Board of Directors of the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). 

Glenda's victory came as a result of massive grassroots reaction to Bennett's policy moves, rejected by parents and teachers across the state and across political lines. Glenda's platform, however, was straightforward and student-centered: 

1. Give more time to education, less time to testing.

2. Give more control to local school districts to implement state and federal standards

3. Make sure every child is safe and respected at school and at school activities.

4. Make teacher licensing and evaluation standards top in the nation. 

5.  Clear the barriers to quality vocational education.

Her decision to run and her victory should serve as an encouragement to teacher leaders across the nation: Don't just complain; be the change. 


National Board Certified Teacher, Glenda Ritz, presented the voters of Indiana clear, consistent, convincing evidence that she deserved to be the new state school chief.

read more

Oneof the guys that changes my thinking more than most is Paul Cancellieri -- seventh grade science teacher and the mind behind Scripted Spontaneity

Paul and I have talked a TON over the years about the mistaken belief that we can improve schools by doing nothing more than filling every classroom with a talented individual.  While talent certainly matters, it's just not enough to drive change in complex human organizations like schools.

read more

Oneof the guys that changes my thinking more than most is Paul Cancellieri -- seventh grade science teacher and the mind behind Scripted Spontaneity

Paul and I have talked a TON over the years about the mistaken belief that we can improve schools by doing nothing more than filling every classroom with a talented individual.  While talent certainly matters, it's just not enough to drive change in complex human organizations like schools.

Instead, driving change in complex human organizations like schools depends on building high-functioning teams that can support one another -- bringing complementary skills to bear against shared challenges:

(click to enlarge)

Download PPT Version

 

So the question -- whether you are a principal, practitioner, parent or policymaker -- is simple: 

What are YOU doing to ensure that the teachers who serve the students that you care about are working on teams that are collectively strong?

___________________________

Related Radical Reads:

Three Things Every Parent and Politician Needs to Know about Merit Pay

These are OUR Kids [SLIDE]

What Can Educational Policymakers Learn from Amazonian Explorers?

Are YOUR Learning Teams Playing Together?

 

 

Original
Image Credit:
Band of Brothers by The US Army

Licensed Creative Commons Attribution on
October 21, 2012

My good friend Brett Gruetzmacher -- who is a fantastic middle school #atplc principal in Indiana --dropped me a question in Twitter the other day that I figured I ought to answer here in the Radical. 

He wrote:

Bill. I am in the process of creating a PLC teacher leader philosophy/description. Do you have a Tempered post that discusses it? Take care. Brett

While I've never written directly about Brett's question here on the Radical, I wrote about teacher leadership in an #atplc school in my first book -- Building a Professional Learning Community at Work.

And the bad news is that there is no SIMPLE formula to determining who is going to make a good teacher leader in a learning community. 

That's because different teams will need different KINDS of leadership at different times -- so a teacher who exerts significant influence and points a team in the right direction early in their work together may not have the right set of skills to move the same team forward after it has worked together successfully for awhile. 

There are a few tricks to identifying potential leaders -- and to creating the right conditions for teacher leadership to thrive on individual learning teams -- that I can offer, however.

Here's three:

Look for connected teachers who have a strong commitment to your school's central principles:

The most important prerequisite for teacher leaders in a learning community is a belief in a school’s central principles.  Find these folks quick.  You'll need them on your side, advocating for the new practices that define schools committed to ensuring learning for EVERY student.

It's equally important that those teachers have a high level of connectivity and influence inside of your organization.  Teachers who have already built strong networks of relationships can spread ideas a heck of a lot quicker than any principal working alone. 

Finally, be on the lookout for teachers that are tapped into a strong network OUTSIDE of your organization as well.  External relationships often become an invaluable source for support when the professional going gets tough. 

Just like Brett was able to turn to me when he had a question that he needed an answer to, teacher leaders often know peers beyond their buildings that can solve problems for their learning teams quickly and easily. 

 

Identify the different types of skills that individual teachers bring to the leadership table:

The way I see it, learning teams rely on different kinds of leadership at different times. 

Sometimes, teams depend on leaders who are relationship builders -- people with an intuitive sense for how people are feeling and a commitment to strengthening the bonds between individuals on their collaborative teams.  

At other times, teams depend on leaders who are systems thinkers -- people with a clear sense for how individual decisions play a role in either moving an entire organization (grade level, department, school, district) forward or holding them back.

Learning teams also depend on problem solvers -- people with the ability to logically think a problem through to conclusion and a commitment to constantly asking "What if..." questions when collaborative efforts stall.

Finally progress on a learning team is impossible without innovators -- people who are constantly imagining and creating and pushing their partners outside of the proverbial box.

Because teams go through different stages of collaborative growth at different times -- and because collaborative growth is NEVER linear and neat -- principals have to make a conscious effort to seed learning teams with a wide-range of teacher leaders.

While you probably can't do that all at once, as team structures change over time, it is ESSENTIAL that the unique leadership characteristics of new members are considered each time a position is filled.

This tracking worksheet from BPLC might help y'all keep up with the personalities in your organization. 

Make sure that there are discovery AND delivery oriented teachers on each learning team:

Poke through The Innovator's DNA and you'll discover that successful leadership in knowledge-driven organizations depends equally on dreamers AND doers -- people with strong discovery AND delivery skills. 

Dreamers help organizations to constantly imagine a better future.  Their commitment to thinking differently means they are never satisfied with the current reality.  They push their peers forward and prevent stagnation from swamping a team. 

Doers, on the other hand, can look at a revolutionary idea and quickly identify the individual steps that need to be taken in order to turn a dream into a reality.  They are practical and determined -- and they serve as the perfect counterweight to dreamers.

For the principals of #atplc schools, creating successful learning teams literally DEPENDS on monitoring the balance between dreamers and doers on individual teams. 

Stack a learning team with a bunch of dreamers -- people with talented discovery skills -- and they will struggle with a thousand fantastic ideas that they can never translate into tangible action.

Stack a learning team with a bunch of doers -- people with talented delivery skills -- and they'll have NO trouble moving forward with the kinds of comfortable, traditional practices that you're trying to change. 

Move a doer to a team of dreamers, however -- or a dreamer to a team of doers -- and you'll create the perfect conditions for another teacher to lead. 

This survey -- which is set to come out in January of 2013 as a part of my second PLC book -- can help you to identify the dreamers and the doers in your organization:

Download Handout_DisoveryDeliverySurvey

 

Very long story short:  The bad news is that there's NOT a single set of criteria for determining who the teacher leaders in your learning community will be.

But the good news is that there are a TON of opportunities for DIFFERENT teachers to lead at DIFFERENT times

Successful #atplc principals have a deep understanding of their faculties and can quickly find the right person to tackle each individual challenge.  More importantly, they have a deep understanding of the leadership strengths of each learning team in their buildings -- and they're ready to use vacancies to address leadership weaknesses. 

Any of this make sense?

______________________________

Related Radical Reads:

What Can the Principals of PLCs Learn from Love Labs?

How Much DOES the Composition of a Learning Team Matter?

Evolutionary Lessons for PLC Principals

 

My good friend Brett Gruetzmacher -- who is a fantastic middle school #atplc principal in Indiana --dropped me a question in Twitter the other day that I figured I ought to answer here in the Radical. 

He wrote:

Bill. I am in the process of creating a PLC teacher leader philosophy/description. Do you have a Tempered post that discusses it? Take care. Brett

read more

Just finished whipping up a new slide based on a Doug Reeves quote in Finding Your Leadership Focus:

Download Slide_Lifeguards

 

Hope you can find a use for it somewhere in your work!

Bill

_____________________________

Related Radical Reads:

Real Progress Doesn't Happen in Leaps and Bounds [Slide]

How Clear is YOUR Vision [Slide]

Practitioners and the Poliwillies [Slide]

 

 

Original Image Credit: Lifeguard Hut at Santa Monica by Angus MacRae

Licensed Creative Commons Attribution on May 29, 2012

 

I ran across an interesting article on the Fast Company website today detailing the work of Method -- a wildly successful startup selling ecofriendly soaps and detergents. 

In it, Eric Ryan and Adam Lowry -- the minds behind Method -- make a point that I think schools working towards sustainable change often fail to understand:  Sometimes the most successful innovations start from thinking at the edges of the box

To the Method guys, edge of the box thinking is called "soft innovation." Here's how they explain it:

"Soft innovators establish new standards for quality, experience, and sales in their categories without actually doing anything profoundly innovative. Think Ben & Jerry's, which introduced the ice cream pint to the world as a more personal alternative to the half-gallon or gallon tub."

In their own work in the personal and homecare marketplace, soft innovations have included tinkering with everything from the scents that they use in their products to the feel of their labels and the quirky shapes of their packages. 

These kinds of evolutionary steps are essentially risk free, argue the Method guys, and risk free innovation is a good thing:

"Don't get us wrong, we love big innovation...but many companies underestimate the power of soft innovation, which can enhance the consumer experience and drive massive differentiation within a category.

The advantage of a soft innovation is that it treads lightly on the R&D budget, requires less marketing support because consumers "get it" right away, and is predictably successful because the idea is familiar and the consumer learning curve is quicker."

Couldn't we revise this thinking into a beautiful statement about successful innovation efforts in schools?  It would look a little something like this if we did:

Don't get us wrong, we love big innovation...but many schools underestimate the power of soft innovation, which can enhance the student experience and drive massive differentiation within a category.

The advantage of a soft innovation is that it treads lightly on the PD budget, requires less marketing support because teachers "get it" right away, and is predictably successful because the idea is familiar and the learning curve for everyone is quicker.

What does this all mean for schools and their leaders?  Most importantly, we need to take active steps towards implementing soft innovations in our schools.  What simple and immediate changes can you make to:

  • The ways that your teachers collaborate.
  • The ways that your teachers assess and report on student learning.
  • The ways that your students interact -- with ideas and with other people.
  • The ways that your students communicate what they know. 

Sure, completely reimagining schools is sexy.  But the simple truth is that sexy isn't always doable -- and our compulsive obsession with the impossible sexy means most of our change efforts are ridiculous failures.  

_____________________

Related Radical Reads:

Sustainable Change in Schools is Evolutionary

Evolutionary Lessons for PLC Principals

Make Like an Obstetrician and Deliver

 

Blogger’s Note:  I’m bringing the pessimism (unfortunate truth?) to the party here, y’all.  If you want warm fuzzies about the joys of teaching, navigate away immediately. 

And if you work beyond the classroom and get your feelings hurt easily, you might not want to read this, either.

#forewarned

____________________________________________

I had an interesting exchange in Twitter today with Todd Whitaker, author and professor of educational leadership at Indiana State University. 

It all started when I stumbled across this tweet in Whitaker’s stream:

Thanks to my tweet buddies I wrote piece comparing a group of negative teachers to Hotel California!

As a guy who is often labeled “negative” by educational leaders, Whitaker’s message caught my attention. 

I’m probably extra-touchy, too, because it’s become all-too-common for eduthinkers to feed into the belief that “negative” teachers (read: anyone who pushes back or questions the choices made by those with power) are to blame for education’s woes. 

One expert even goes as far as to label resistant teachers “fundamentalists.” How’s that for a loaded word?

So I chirped back at Whitaker, writing:

"Negative teachers" can often be a symptom of poor leadership. Demonizing them is easy, but often irresponsible.

The conversation went on for a while, with Whitaker arguing that good teachers know what negativity looks like and that poor leadership cannot be an excuse for bringing negativity into a classroom. 

He wrote:

Ironically negative people hope it is something besides them that is cause - poor leadership, problem parents, political leaders.

Whitaker’s comments left me wondering whether it’s just plain easier to be optimistic about the life of a classroom teacher when you’re working beyond the classroom.

You see, I’m looking through the lens of a guy who still works in the classroom and there are a TON of things that make it difficult to stay positive as a teacher.

Perhaps most importantly, we have little real control over our work even as outsiders scream about holding us accountable for producing “results” that they’ve yet to carefully define. 

We’re expected to march our students through impossibly large curricula even as well respected researchers claim that there’s too much to cover in the time that we’re given.

We walk moral tightropes, making difficult choices every day between implementing test-centric classrooms or preparing kids for an increasingly complex future.

We’re on the receiving end of under-informed policies that even recognized experts on organizational leadership and change don’t believe in. 

We’ve seen experimentation and play squeezed out of everything that we do in schools—and we’ve watched our classrooms become places that reward automatons and crush the spirit of the quirky kid.

Our profession provides no opportunities for differentiation.  We do the same work—and are afforded the same professional respect and credibility—for decades no matter what we accomplish beyond the classroom.

Our work has been bulldozed.  We’re buried under initiatives that never seem to make any sense.  Our schools have no clear directionCliches and slogans substitute for leadership in our schools.

We watch our peers leave year after year.  Our professional development opportunities stink.  We’re forced to watch our students be defined by a number.

Our elected leaders declare war on us.  News commentators mock us.  Whacks and hacks start organizations that suggest that we have failed to put students first.

Should I go on?  (Sadly, I could.)

My point is a simple one: People working beyond the classroom like to believe that if teachers would just buck up—work a little harder, think a little longer, give a bit more—our schools would be sunshine and daffodils. 

In our Twitter conversation, Whitaker puts it this way:

There is a difference between trying to find a solution to a problem and complaining about it.

The sad reality is that no matter how hard teachers work to find solutions to the DOZENS of problems plaguing our schools, final decisions are made by people working beyond the classroom. 

We had little control over creating these problems and we’ll have little control over fixing them.  Instead, we’ll be expected to implement the solutions that others dream up, no matter how half-baked they really are.

That’s discouraging. 

And it’s the reason why I’m pretty darn sure that our schools will never be able to recruit enough accomplished teachers to ever really be successful. 

We need more than optimism to solve problems. 

We need authority. 

And that’s something we’ll never have because the gap between the rhetoric and the reality of life as a teacher leader remains impossibly large. 

#pessimism

Are you ready for a disgusting fact:  Most doctors and nurses—highly trained and respected professionals—wash their hands less than half as often as they’re supposed to when they’re working with patients (Gawande, 2007).

Stew in that for a minute. 

Imagine the doctor caring for your mother in Intensive Care. 

There is better than a 1 in 2 chance that he just finished checking an open sore or changing a filthy bandage on a patient down the hall and has stopped in quickly to check on Mom without bothering to wash his hands.

Think about the nurse who has been so wonderful for the past few weeks, gently washing your mother’s face with cool water to lower her temperature.

There’s better than a 1 in 2 chance that she just finished doing the same with a patient who has pneumonia two rooms over and hasn't made it to a sink yet.

Considering that bacteria counts on the average hand range from 5,000 to 5 MILLION parts per square centimeter, those careless hand washing practices aren’t simply irresponsible—they can be downright deadly, passing infections around to uninfected people at alarming rates.

What’s really crazy is that hospitals are CONSTANTLY working to improve hand washing practices in their facilities. 

Many have gone as far as to install alcohol rinses and gels in every room, knowing that alcohol rinses are more effective and efficient than traditional scrubbing with soap and water.

Most monitor hand washing practices, posting results and reminders on almost every surface in every unit across their hospitals.

Some go as far as to hire staffers whose sole job is to make unannounced visits to individual floors in an attempt to hold doctors and nurses accountable for their choices when it comes to hand cleanliness. 

But few have ever bothered to ask doctors or nurses why they’re so careless about such a simple and effective practice.

That’s exactly, however, what industrial engineer Peter Perreiah did when he was put in charge of a small, 40-bed surgical unit at one of Pittsburgh’s veterans hospitals. “Peter didn’t ask, ‘Why don’t you wash your hands’,” one doctor reported, “He asked, ‘Why can’t you?”  (Gawande, 2007, Kindle Location 308-313).

The answer—which will come as no surprise to classroom teachers and school leaders—was time. 

As it turns out, doctors and nurses are pretty busy people. 

Often in charge of monitoring the progress of dozens of patients on several different floors of large hospitals, just making rounds in a timely fashion can be a challenge.

Add to that challenge the almost constant struggle to find needed examination supplies—gauze, tape, gowns, gloves, medical tools—in each of the dozens of rooms that they are responsible for visiting, and it is easier to understand how doctors and nurses were skipping a hygienic step that should never be skipped.

So Perreiah—in true engineer fashion—set out to make changes that would address each of the concerns that his doctors and nurses had identified as time sinks preventing them from consistently maintaining the highest hygienic standards. 

As Atul Gawande explains in his 2007 book Better: A Surgeon’s Notes on Performance:

(Perreiah) came up with a just-in-time supply system that kept not only gowns and gloves at the bedside but also gauze and tape and other things the staff needed, so they didn’t have to go back and forth out of the room to search for them.

Rather than make everyone clean their stethoscopes, notorious carriers of infection, between patients, he arranged for each patient room to have a designated stethoscope on the wall…

He made each hospital room work more like an operating room, in other words. 

(Kindle Location 308-317)

Perreiah’s changes had remarkable results.  Within one year, infection rates for MRSA—the contagious bacterial infection most likely to lead to death in hospitals—fell almost 90% in his ward (Gawande, 2007).

The story doesn’t have a happy ending, however. 

Despite showing that infection rates could be successfully addressed by making simple changes to save doctors and nurses time, Perreiah’s changes failed to take hold in other wards and on other floors in the same hospital. 

Even worse, when Perreiah left his original unit two years after beginning his experiment in hand washing, performance took a nosedive. 

Turns out that Perreiah was just as important to the improvements in hygiene on his unit as the changes that he had made—and once he’d left, the commitment to the changes wavered.

Interesting stuff, isn’t it? 

And chock-a-block FULL of lessons for school leaders attempting to implement professional learning communities.

Here’s two:

Principals that are successfully STRUCTURING PLCs spend time listening to their classroom teachers about the challenges of implementing new processes and practices.

I’ve been around the PLC movement long enough that I’ve seen PLC implementation done wrong far more often than I’ve seen it done right.

And the failure that I see the most frequently is school leaders who mandate new practices from the principal’s office—collaborative meetings, SMART goal writing, data collection and analysis, identifying essential objectives—without ever listening to their teachers.

The result:  Overwhelmed teachers buried under new behaviors that they are poorly prepared to implement.

When they raise concerns, however, their painted as whiners or resisters or fundamentalists.  Heck—popular thinkers go as far as to argue that they should be thrown off the collective bus when they don’t comply with school directives.

That kind of stubborn refusal to listen to practitioners has gotten hospitals nowhere, hasn’t it?

With average rates of hand washing compliance hovering around 70 percent—even as hospitals hire compliance experts to make “hand washing interventions” on every floor—inadvertent infections are appallingly common.

Perreiah’s approach was different, though.  Instead of falling into the “leadership by harangue,” approach so common in hospitals he took the time to learn from practitioners—and then aggressively attacked the implementation challenges that they identified.

And that’s what YOU should be doing, too. 

Trust the knowledge and opinions of your practitioners because that knowledge is the closest reflection of the current reality in your building that you have.

And then make it your job to aggressively attack—rather than openly doubt or willingly ignore—the PLC implementation challenges that they identify.

THAT’s what leadership REALLY looks like in action.

Principals that are successfully SUSTAINING PLCs develop organizational leadership skills within their faculties.

The story of Perreiah’s success is really nothing more than a story of failure, isn’t it?  After all, the progress made on his original unit wasn’t sustained. 

Sure, reducing infection rates by 90 percent for two years is pretty darn admirable work—but if the change can’t outlive the leader, was it really a change at all?

Sadly, successful PLCs often suffer from the same kinds of stumbles when they lose their leaders—and that’s because the leaders of PLCs generally do a poor job planning for their own departures.

How can you avoid making the same mistake?

The most important step is to start to distribute leadership from the day that you get hired.  Find teacher leaders and cultivate them. 

Build their knowledge around leadership and PLC concepts.  Put them in charge of important committees.  Allow them to make key decisions—even when you aren’t completely sold on the decisions that they are invested in.

Ask them to act like leaders. 

Have them defend the rationale for choices that they believe in based on your school’s mission and vision. Encourage them to be influencers—developing relationships that they can use to drive change later.

And then document EVERYTHING that your faculty believes in.

Tie your building’s choices to detailed rationales that can be shared with new principals when they replace you.  Make time to sit down with those principals—as well as the influential teachers on your building—early in their tenure.

By engaging in these practices—essentially crafting a detailed exit strategy from day one—you can help to ensure that the changes in your building outlive you.

Does any of this make sense?  Can you think of any other lessons that we can learn from the story of dirty hands in hospitals?

What barriers to you think school leaders face when trying to structure and/or sustain PLC initiatives? 

How are you—or your principals—successfully addressing those barriers?

 

_______________________________

Work Cited:

Gawande, A. (2007). Better: A Surgeon's Notes on Performance. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books.

Syndicate content